You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2009/12/01 10:01:34 UTC
Prepared to tag apr 1.4.0 [NOT -util!]
Folks,
Please review the attached delta of apr 1.3 to 1.4 changes and
chime in if you believe we are ready to tag 1.4. I suspect we are.
Thanks!
Bill
Re: Prepared to tag apr 1.4.0 [NOT -util!]
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Please review the attached delta of apr 1.3 to 1.4 changes and
> chime in if you believe we are ready to tag 1.4. I suspect we are.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
Since there were no objections to the original trunk commit and
responses to my pings on-list, I merged r821306 from trunk to the 1.4
branch.
Index: CHANGES
===================================================================
--- CHANGES (revision 885698)
+++ CHANGES (revision 885699)
@@ -34,6 +34,9 @@
*) Add apr_file_link() function. PR 44841. [Mark Heily <mark heily.com>]
+ *) Win32: Properly handle the ERROR_DIRECTORY system error code.
+ [Brane Čibej]
+
Changes for APR 1.3.x and later:
*) http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/CHANGES?view=markup
Index: include/apr_errno.h
===================================================================
--- include/apr_errno.h (revision 885698)
+++ include/apr_errno.h (revision 885699)
@@ -1046,7 +1046,8 @@
|| (s) == APR_OS_START_SYSERR + ERROR_BAD_NETPATH \
|| (s) == APR_OS_START_SYSERR + ERROR_BAD_NET_NAME \
|| (s) == APR_OS_START_SYSERR + ERROR_BAD_PATHNAME \
- || (s) == APR_OS_START_SYSERR + ERROR_INVALID_DRIVE)
+ || (s) == APR_OS_START_SYSERR + ERROR_INVALID_DRIVE \
+ || (s) == APR_OS_START_SYSERR + ERROR_DIRECTORY)
#define APR_STATUS_IS_ENOSPC(s) ((s) == APR_ENOSPC \
|| (s) == APR_OS_START_SYSERR + ERROR_DISK_FULL)
#define APR_STATUS_IS_ENOMEM(s) ((s) == APR_ENOMEM \
Re: Prepared to tag apr 1.4.0 [NOT -util!]
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:01 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Please review the attached delta of apr 1.3 to 1.4 changes and
> chime in if you believe we are ready to tag 1.4. I suspect we are.
+1
Re: Prepared to tag apr 1.4.0 [NOT -util!]
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 03:01:34AM -0600, William Rowe wrote:
> Please review the attached delta of apr 1.3 to 1.4 changes and
> chime in if you believe we are ready to tag 1.4. I suspect we are.
Looks good here!
Regards, Joe
Re: Prepared to tag apr 1.4.0 [NOT -util!]
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 12/04/2009 05:38 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> Guenter Knauf wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> William A. Rowe Jr. schrieb:
>>>> I see good responses to the list from Branko, Joe and Jeff (and thanks
>>>> for the bugfix Branko), so I'll proceed with this tonight, we'll have
>>>> the usual 72hr vote, and then let's start this discussion over about
>>>> the much larger changes in apr-util 1.4 ;)
>>> I think we should take a look into the apr/apu tests first; Ruediger
>>> mentioned this a while ago that we only report failures, but dont bail
>>> out but instead try to use NULL pointers where we expect to have valid
>>> pointers ...; therefore failing tests produce segfaults on some
>>> platforms ...
>> I don't see that as a showstopper to a major/minor bump; these are always
>> bug fixes that can be addressed.
>>
>> What would be nice is if we could modify the test framework itself, perhaps
>> fatal v.s. fail&continue flavors of all tests, to encourage the appropriate
>> and proper logic in all test cases.
>
> Raises the question; are the contents of test/ subject to ABI, or only the
> prototypes of include/* (nonrecursive)?
>
IMHO only include/* as I assume that no developer uses test/ in its own projects.
IMHO test/ is only for internal APR / APR-UTIL purposes.
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: Prepared to tag apr 1.4.0 [NOT -util!]
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Guenter Knauf wrote:
>> Hi,
>> William A. Rowe Jr. schrieb:
>>> I see good responses to the list from Branko, Joe and Jeff (and thanks
>>> for the bugfix Branko), so I'll proceed with this tonight, we'll have
>>> the usual 72hr vote, and then let's start this discussion over about
>>> the much larger changes in apr-util 1.4 ;)
>> I think we should take a look into the apr/apu tests first; Ruediger
>> mentioned this a while ago that we only report failures, but dont bail
>> out but instead try to use NULL pointers where we expect to have valid
>> pointers ...; therefore failing tests produce segfaults on some
>> platforms ...
>
> I don't see that as a showstopper to a major/minor bump; these are always
> bug fixes that can be addressed.
>
> What would be nice is if we could modify the test framework itself, perhaps
> fatal v.s. fail&continue flavors of all tests, to encourage the appropriate
> and proper logic in all test cases.
Raises the question; are the contents of test/ subject to ABI, or only the
prototypes of include/* (nonrecursive)?
Re: Prepared to tag apr 1.4.0 [NOT -util!]
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Hi,
> William A. Rowe Jr. schrieb:
>> I see good responses to the list from Branko, Joe and Jeff (and thanks
>> for the bugfix Branko), so I'll proceed with this tonight, we'll have
>> the usual 72hr vote, and then let's start this discussion over about
>> the much larger changes in apr-util 1.4 ;)
> I think we should take a look into the apr/apu tests first; Ruediger
> mentioned this a while ago that we only report failures, but dont bail
> out but instead try to use NULL pointers where we expect to have valid
> pointers ...; therefore failing tests produce segfaults on some
> platforms ...
I don't see that as a showstopper to a major/minor bump; these are always
bug fixes that can be addressed.
What would be nice is if we could modify the test framework itself, perhaps
fatal v.s. fail&continue flavors of all tests, to encourage the appropriate
and proper logic in all test cases.
But a segv to a test suite is usually a fail, so it's pretty unambiguous :)
Re: Prepared to tag apr 1.4.0 [NOT -util!]
Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.
Hi,
William A. Rowe Jr. schrieb:
> I see good responses to the list from Branko, Joe and Jeff (and thanks
> for the bugfix Branko), so I'll proceed with this tonight, we'll have
> the usual 72hr vote, and then let's start this discussion over about
> the much larger changes in apr-util 1.4 ;)
I think we should take a look into the apr/apu tests first; Ruediger
mentioned this a while ago that we only report failures, but dont bail
out but instead try to use NULL pointers where we expect to have valid
pointers ...; therefore failing tests produce segfaults on some
platforms ...
Gün.
Re: Prepared to tag apr 1.4.0 [NOT -util!]
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Please review the attached delta of apr 1.3 to 1.4 changes and
> chime in if you believe we are ready to tag 1.4. I suspect we are.
I see good responses to the list from Branko, Joe and Jeff (and thanks
for the bugfix Branko), so I'll proceed with this tonight, we'll have
the usual 72hr vote, and then let's start this discussion over about
the much larger changes in apr-util 1.4 ;)
Bill